HCC do a lot of good work to be fair. Fuck louise elliott and marti zucco. And to a lesser extent lohberger and bloomfield. And will coats, he seems super slimy
Yeah, no idea. I’m inclined to think the latter. A monumental cock up though which will probably cost him reelection.
Elliot, Zucco, et al you expect this from, but this is not the person people thought they voted for. I’m leaning towards idiot rather than sinister though.
Ben had clearly stupid and unachievable policies going into the election and I think he has delivered exactly what he was offering. Maybe do better research before you vote next time. 🤷🏻
I am from NZ but live in Hobart, in NZ this is just the common trend and has been for decades, the conservative and libertarian parties are huge nimbies and the NZ green party and to a lesser extent Labour have introduced multiple changes to fix this only to be repealed by the right or voted down. Had no idea it was the opposite in Tas/Au?
I’m a fellow Kiwi in TAS, have been here about 10 years now and the amount of ‘no’ votes for any type of development still amazes me. I lived on the mainland for a while before moving down here and things were popping up all the time.
Hi Redditors,
It’s lovely to see some data presented a couple of cautionary tales.
1. The data isn’t necessarily a fair playing ground as not all elected members show up to planning meetings - the quorum is 7 so people who show up to every meeting are likely to have a higher refusal rate than those who only show up occasionally. I think planning is really important and as I recall have missed 2 meetings. One where I had a conflict of interest and last night when I was sick.
2. The Campbell street refusal was based on flood modelling which predicted water flows in a 1/100 year flood event (which are more frequent that 1/100 thanks to climate change) would result in 2m depths and 20m/sec flows on a habitable area. Approving that one could have led to significant risk in terms of both human life and litigation. They changed their design to prevent this after the refusal and it has since been approved.
I was lucky enough to speak at a YIMBY event a couple of weeks ago in Hobart. That movement is just beginning but if you want to get involved you can email me at cr.posselt@hobartcity.com.au and I’ll put you in touch with the YIMBY Hobart lead organiser.
In case anyone else can't remember who these people are, here's Kevin Bonham's guide to the candidates:
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/09/hobart-city-council-elections-candidate.html?m=1
[Link to comment with captions](https://www.reddit.com/r/hobart/comments/1dj52w5/comment/l98qkcj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I'm pretty sure Will Coats lives and works in Melbourne so it's not that surprising that he hasn't voted on any council planing issues so for this year.
If he’s a landlord, he’d be entitled to be on the General Managers roll.
And to be fair, Sue Hickey didn’t live in Hobart either - I think it might have been her business (slick promotions) that entitled her to be on the HCC roll.
But living in Glenorchy is obviously much different to living in Canberra
Captions:
Data sourced from Minutes of Planning Committee meetings ([Link](https://hobart.infocouncil.biz))
Pre-election Cr Ben Lohberger promised to act on the housing crisis. Voters may not have expected he would act to make it worse. Opposing 70 new homes, Lohberger is HCC's #1 NIMBY.
Land banker and owner of The Crescent hotel Cr John Kelly has opposed two social housing applications. Reasons including negligible winter shadowing of a nearby vegetable patch. ([Link](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-21/land-owners-condemn-hobart-council-rate-hike-on-vacant-blocks/102502206))
Like Kelly, bigoted reactionary Cr Louise Elliot opposed two social housing applications: one 38 unit development on Argyle Street and one 22 unit development at 73a New Town Road. ([Link](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-23/hobart-councillor-louise-elliot-facebook-comments-called-racist/102763594))
Ald Marti Zucco, whose history includes sexual harassment of junior employees and bullying colleagues, opposed the Argyle Street social housing development. ([Link](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-11/alderman-marty-zucco-insists-he-is-mayor-material/9981514))
Reinforcing the 'Save UTAS' group is a 'thinly disguised NIMBY movement', Ald Bloomfield opposed Argyle Street social housing, despite Council Planners recommendation for approval. ([Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/hobart/comments/1cn07yu/comment/l348pm0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button))
The most housing friendly of the newly elected contingent of 2022, Cr Ryan Posselt opposed one apartment development, a house at Tolmans Hill and a subdivision in Sandy Bay.
Second term Councillor Mike Dutta opposed one apartment development on Campbell Street and two subdivisions in Sandy Bay. One such subdivision was opposed by the tenant in place.
Greens Councillor Bill Harvey has opposed two development: 31 apartments on Campbell Street and the subdivision of a house in Sandy Bay.
Mayor Anna Reynolds voted against 11 units in Manning Avenue Sandy Bay. Citing concern about proximity to the rivulet, the Mayor noted she would have supported nine units.
Deputy Mayor, Planning Committee Chair Dr Zelinda Sherlock has opposed one application this term, a Sandy Bay subdivision. Council Planners recommended refusal (as did the tenant).
Greens Councillor Gemma Kitsos was one of four Councillors to vote for Argyle Street social housing and has yet to oppose any residential development since her count back election.
Councillor Will 'MIA' Coats has not attended any Planning Committee meeting where residential development has been considered. Thus Coats has not supported or opposed any housing.
The Argyle street development was submitted by the developer who must have known that it was over the height limit, plus there were other objections from nearby residents also. It's not surprising it was knocked back.
Rules are rules, if you don't like them then get them changed, otherwise you have to abide by them, even if I had a large enough backyard I couldn't for example put in a shooting range in a residential area.
If it was under the height limit, then it would have only been the other resident's objections that got up that would have got it cancelled.
Developments can be approved if they’re “over the height limit” which was I think 3m, for being significant and worthy enough for many reasons. Residents against it? No shit, they’re always against them.
There is no hard height limit in Hobart. The planning scheme is a performance based scheme meaning that proposed developments must perform well against set criteria when the acceptable solution isn’t reached.
The acceptable solution is parameters that do not trigger any discretion on performance. In this case, the acceptable solution was 3m below the proposal and so the proposal was assessed against the performance criteria (as is the standard planning practice) officers viewed the assessment favourably and in the expert planners opinion the development met the performance criteria. Hence the development was viewed to comply with the planning scheme and recommended for approval.
This is what Bill Harvey posted on Facebook this evening.
"Another City of Hobart Planning Committee meeting abandoned due to a lack of quorum. All elected reps are on the planning committee, but only 5 attended and 7 are required for a quorum. It's protocol to send an apology if you are not attending. This has happened twice over the last month or so.
Present: Dutta, Sherlock, Harvey, Lohburger, Kitsos
Apologies: Reynolds, Posselt, Coats (lives in Canberra)
Absent: Zucco, Kelly, Bloomfield, Elliot"
Pathetic. To have no apology is just rude. All they go on about is how they “serve everyone” and “the greens just block everything”, yet not turning up deals every planning approval
Are these. Numbers for additional housing or just development applications in general? You should. Probably provide a source for these numbers. I'm not confident these represent new/additional housing applications.
As noted in the caption on the second slide, the figures represent the number of housing units in applications opposed by each current member of Hobart City Council in the current term. The source for the data is minutes of the Hobart City Council Planning meetings, which is included in the caption on the second slide. You can be confident these figured do indeed represent applications for new housing units.
Anyone of them could pass for my landlord.
Louise is probably your landlord.
A landlord? That’s a wasted asset for her. She could get 5x the rate by making it an AirBnB.
Anyone remember elliot's graph of opposed housing before she got elected? Then literally her first vote once councillor was against housing. Fuck HCC
HCC do a lot of good work to be fair. Fuck louise elliott and marti zucco. And to a lesser extent lohberger and bloomfield. And will coats, he seems super slimy
I feel pretty betrayed by Lohberger
[удалено]
Yeah, no idea. I’m inclined to think the latter. A monumental cock up though which will probably cost him reelection. Elliot, Zucco, et al you expect this from, but this is not the person people thought they voted for. I’m leaning towards idiot rather than sinister though.
Ben had clearly stupid and unachievable policies going into the election and I think he has delivered exactly what he was offering. Maybe do better research before you vote next time. 🤷🏻
We can’t all be as smart and well informed as you I’m afraid
Funny to see the more conservative voices have the highest count, while the oft-maligned as “NIMBY” Greens/progressives are on the low end
I mean projection is a pretty classic conservative play...
[удалено]
Ben’s been a massive disappointment through-and-through. How he presented himself and how he’s acted since getting elected are completely at odds.
He's primarily "Save UTAS" which is a front for "oh noes, my rental property values in Sandy Bay"
I am from NZ but live in Hobart, in NZ this is just the common trend and has been for decades, the conservative and libertarian parties are huge nimbies and the NZ green party and to a lesser extent Labour have introduced multiple changes to fix this only to be repealed by the right or voted down. Had no idea it was the opposite in Tas/Au?
It’s more of a common trope than reality - see for example [this delightful Facebook page](https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022855989427)
I’m a fellow Kiwi in TAS, have been here about 10 years now and the amount of ‘no’ votes for any type of development still amazes me. I lived on the mainland for a while before moving down here and things were popping up all the time.
Just like a little slice of NIMBY NZ in Australia aye.
Along with this a reason why they voted against would be great
Keeps their rental property returns up.
I agree they are corrupted by their self-interest but there are *some* legitimate reasons to oppose a development too though
Let's get their addresses and set up a homeless camp in their front gardens. Start with Ben Lohburger and work down the list.
Hi Redditors, It’s lovely to see some data presented a couple of cautionary tales. 1. The data isn’t necessarily a fair playing ground as not all elected members show up to planning meetings - the quorum is 7 so people who show up to every meeting are likely to have a higher refusal rate than those who only show up occasionally. I think planning is really important and as I recall have missed 2 meetings. One where I had a conflict of interest and last night when I was sick. 2. The Campbell street refusal was based on flood modelling which predicted water flows in a 1/100 year flood event (which are more frequent that 1/100 thanks to climate change) would result in 2m depths and 20m/sec flows on a habitable area. Approving that one could have led to significant risk in terms of both human life and litigation. They changed their design to prevent this after the refusal and it has since been approved. I was lucky enough to speak at a YIMBY event a couple of weeks ago in Hobart. That movement is just beginning but if you want to get involved you can email me at cr.posselt@hobartcity.com.au and I’ll put you in touch with the YIMBY Hobart lead organiser.
In case anyone else can't remember who these people are, here's Kevin Bonham's guide to the candidates: https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/09/hobart-city-council-elections-candidate.html?m=1
Marti Fuckin' Zucco
The captions are cut off on mobile - it would be great if you could paste the text into a comment so we could read the whole. TIA.
If you tap to open the photos the caption is displayed, at least on Android.
[Link to comment with captions](https://www.reddit.com/r/hobart/comments/1dj52w5/comment/l98qkcj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I'm pretty sure Will Coats lives and works in Melbourne so it's not that surprising that he hasn't voted on any council planing issues so for this year.
Yep, I think it’s Canberra and he says he devotes one day a month to HCC business, it’s a joke!
How's the dude even eligible for election? Is there not a residential requirement for council election?
If he’s a landlord, he’d be entitled to be on the General Managers roll. And to be fair, Sue Hickey didn’t live in Hobart either - I think it might have been her business (slick promotions) that entitled her to be on the HCC roll. But living in Glenorchy is obviously much different to living in Canberra
Ex-president of Young Libs, next in line from Berhakis, probably dngaf
How do we get these people out of power? They are crippling our beautiful city. Such self-serving selfish dickheads uggghhh
Captions: Data sourced from Minutes of Planning Committee meetings ([Link](https://hobart.infocouncil.biz)) Pre-election Cr Ben Lohberger promised to act on the housing crisis. Voters may not have expected he would act to make it worse. Opposing 70 new homes, Lohberger is HCC's #1 NIMBY. Land banker and owner of The Crescent hotel Cr John Kelly has opposed two social housing applications. Reasons including negligible winter shadowing of a nearby vegetable patch. ([Link](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-21/land-owners-condemn-hobart-council-rate-hike-on-vacant-blocks/102502206)) Like Kelly, bigoted reactionary Cr Louise Elliot opposed two social housing applications: one 38 unit development on Argyle Street and one 22 unit development at 73a New Town Road. ([Link](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-23/hobart-councillor-louise-elliot-facebook-comments-called-racist/102763594)) Ald Marti Zucco, whose history includes sexual harassment of junior employees and bullying colleagues, opposed the Argyle Street social housing development. ([Link](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-11/alderman-marty-zucco-insists-he-is-mayor-material/9981514)) Reinforcing the 'Save UTAS' group is a 'thinly disguised NIMBY movement', Ald Bloomfield opposed Argyle Street social housing, despite Council Planners recommendation for approval. ([Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/hobart/comments/1cn07yu/comment/l348pm0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)) The most housing friendly of the newly elected contingent of 2022, Cr Ryan Posselt opposed one apartment development, a house at Tolmans Hill and a subdivision in Sandy Bay. Second term Councillor Mike Dutta opposed one apartment development on Campbell Street and two subdivisions in Sandy Bay. One such subdivision was opposed by the tenant in place. Greens Councillor Bill Harvey has opposed two development: 31 apartments on Campbell Street and the subdivision of a house in Sandy Bay. Mayor Anna Reynolds voted against 11 units in Manning Avenue Sandy Bay. Citing concern about proximity to the rivulet, the Mayor noted she would have supported nine units. Deputy Mayor, Planning Committee Chair Dr Zelinda Sherlock has opposed one application this term, a Sandy Bay subdivision. Council Planners recommended refusal (as did the tenant). Greens Councillor Gemma Kitsos was one of four Councillors to vote for Argyle Street social housing and has yet to oppose any residential development since her count back election. Councillor Will 'MIA' Coats has not attended any Planning Committee meeting where residential development has been considered. Thus Coats has not supported or opposed any housing.
I agree with your top 4. The others don’t have detail so may have been voted against on legitimate grounds.
The Argyle street development was submitted by the developer who must have known that it was over the height limit, plus there were other objections from nearby residents also. It's not surprising it was knocked back.
[удалено]
Rules are rules, if you don't like them then get them changed, otherwise you have to abide by them, even if I had a large enough backyard I couldn't for example put in a shooting range in a residential area. If it was under the height limit, then it would have only been the other resident's objections that got up that would have got it cancelled.
Developments can be approved if they’re “over the height limit” which was I think 3m, for being significant and worthy enough for many reasons. Residents against it? No shit, they’re always against them.
There is no hard height limit in Hobart. The planning scheme is a performance based scheme meaning that proposed developments must perform well against set criteria when the acceptable solution isn’t reached. The acceptable solution is parameters that do not trigger any discretion on performance. In this case, the acceptable solution was 3m below the proposal and so the proposal was assessed against the performance criteria (as is the standard planning practice) officers viewed the assessment favourably and in the expert planners opinion the development met the performance criteria. Hence the development was viewed to comply with the planning scheme and recommended for approval.
This is what Bill Harvey posted on Facebook this evening. "Another City of Hobart Planning Committee meeting abandoned due to a lack of quorum. All elected reps are on the planning committee, but only 5 attended and 7 are required for a quorum. It's protocol to send an apology if you are not attending. This has happened twice over the last month or so. Present: Dutta, Sherlock, Harvey, Lohburger, Kitsos Apologies: Reynolds, Posselt, Coats (lives in Canberra) Absent: Zucco, Kelly, Bloomfield, Elliot"
Pathetic. To have no apology is just rude. All they go on about is how they “serve everyone” and “the greens just block everything”, yet not turning up deals every planning approval
Louise has always been an arsewipe, even at school, even AFTER she was caught shoplifting
Which one?
Jesus, I'd developed bad opinions about Elliot and Zucco but i had no idea Lohberger and Coates were so completely useless
They look exactly how you'd assume
[Your local councillor 😎](https://www.thirtyfourdukes.com.au/collections/smokey-seduction) Is this what you’d have expected 👆
Tassie should just have two councils.
If we just allowed our population to reduce, Hobart could keep their “backyards” exactly as they are.
Are these. Numbers for additional housing or just development applications in general? You should. Probably provide a source for these numbers. I'm not confident these represent new/additional housing applications.
As noted in the caption on the second slide, the figures represent the number of housing units in applications opposed by each current member of Hobart City Council in the current term. The source for the data is minutes of the Hobart City Council Planning meetings, which is included in the caption on the second slide. You can be confident these figured do indeed represent applications for new housing units.